Judge Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF .pdf by lovemacromastia

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 24

									         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 1 of 24



 1                                                     Judge Coughenour
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7                          UN ITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT
                           WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
 8                                    AT SEATTLE
 9   UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,                )
                                               )       NO.    CR99-666C
10                        Plaintiff,           )
                                               )
11                 v.                          )       GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
                                               )       MEMORANDUM
12   AHMED RESSAM,                             )
                                               )
13                        Defendant.           )
                                               )
14

15          The U nited States of America, by and through John McKay, United States
16   Attorney for the Western D istrict of Washington, and M ark N . Bartlett, F irst Assistant
17   United States Attorney, and M ike Lang, Assistant U nited States Attorney for said
18   District, files this Sentencing Memorandum.
19                               I.     INTRODUCTION
20          On Apr il 6, 2001, the defendant, Ahmed Ressam, was convicted of nine federal
21   crimes related to his planned terrorist attack on U . S. soil. His crime, if carried to
22   fruition, would have ended in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of innocent people.
23   Following his conviction, Ressam entered into a cooperation agreement wherein he
24   agreed to fully cooperate with the U nited States and other foreign governments. In
25   exchange, Ressam hoped that the government would recommend a sentence far lower
26   than his sentencing guideline range. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties agreed that
27   no matter how much assistance he provided to the government, neither Ressam nor the
28   government would recommend a sentence of less than twenty-seven (27) years

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 1                                                 U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                  700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                     S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                             (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005     Page 2 of 24



 1   confinement. Ressam has since ended all cooperation with the government, thereby
 2   breaching his agreement and effectively terminating at least two criminal cases of vital
 3   interest to national security. Ressam now comes before this court for sentencing.
 4         The government recommends a sentence of thirty five (35) years imprisonment.
 5   This recommendation is based upon the defendant’s sentencing guideline range, the
 6   statutory sentencing factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code § 3553, the nature
 7   of Ressam’s crimes, and the nature and extent of Ressam’s cooperation.
 8                             II.   FACTUAL BACKGROUND
 9         In November 1993, defendant Ahmed Ressam (hereafter Ressam) was arrested
10   in Corsica on immigration violations and faced the pr ospect of deportation back to his
11   native country, Algeria. To avoid this fate, Ressam created a crude false passport in
12   the name Tahar Medjadi and flew to Canada on February 20, 1994. Ressam’s passport
13   was detected by Canadian immigration officials and he was arrested. In an effort to
14   remain in Canada and avoid deportation, Ressam applied for political asylum based on
15   a false claim of Algerian abuse and torture.
16         Over the next several years Ressam lived in Montreal with other Algerian
17   immigrants getting by on handouts from the Canadian government and money he made
18   committing a variety of petty crimes. In June 1995, Ressam was convicted of
19   shoplifting and ordered to leave C anada by July 23, 1995. He remained in M ontreal,
20   and in October 1996, Ressam was arrested again and eventually convicted of
21   pickpocketing $300 from a tour ist.
22         In Montreal, Ressam m et a man named Abder raouf Hannachi. Hannachi was a
23   member of al Qaeda and was actively recruiting individuals to join the holy war and
24   attend training in Afghanistan camps sponsored by Osama bin Laden. Hannachi
25   worked in conjunction with Abu Z ubaydah, an al Qaeda leader who served as a
26   gatekeeper for recr uits traveling to the Afghanistan camps.
27         In preparation for his jihad training in Afghanistan, Ressam needed a new
28   identity. He obtained a genuine Canadian passport through a document vendor who

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 2                                              U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                               700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                  S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                          (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 3 of 24



 1   stole a blank baptismal certificate from a Catholic Church. With these documents,
 2   Ressam created a new identity for himself - Benni Antoine Noris. In Mar ch 1998,
 3   Ressam obtained the Canadian passport in the name Benni Noris. He flew from
 4   Toronto to Frankfurt, Germ any, on March 16, 1998, and then to Pakistan. On the
 5   border between P akistan and Afghanistan, Ressam met Abu Z ubaydah. In late April
 6   1998, Ressam left Pakistan over the Khyber Pass into the Khalden tr aining camp in
 7   Afghanistan.
 8          Ressam received basic terrorist training for several months. In September 1998,
 9   Ressam was sent to a second camp where he received advanced training on explosives.
10   By January 1999, Ressam was ready to leave Afghanistan and return to Canada and
11   join a terrorist cell coordinated by Abu Dohah. Ressam departed Afghanistan with
12   instructions to organize an attack against the United States to coincide with the new
13   millennium. He was allowed to choose his own target and the date for his attack.
14          Ressam selected Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), in order to maximize
15   the impact on the United States public: the airport was in a large urban center, he
16   would likely inflict a large number of civilian casualties, and the attack would tar get a
17   critical transportation system and thereby effect the United States economy. Ressam
18   chose the date in December, 1999, in order to maximize the impact of the attack given
19   the huge fears of the public about the pending millennium, fears ranging from computer
20   breakdowns to the apocalypse.
21          On F ebruary 7, 1999, Ressam landed at LAX carrying handwritten notes on how
22   to make a bomb, and carrying two key ingredients for making a bomb: glycol and
23   hexamine. Ressam, still using the Benni Noris passport, left LAX and r eturned to
24   Canada.
25          On August 31, 1999, Ressam went to an electronics store in St. L aurent and
26   purchased $237 worth of electronics equipment required for making a bomb. The next
27   day, September 1, Ressam purchased two Casio alarm watches to use as timing devices
28   for the bombs.

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 3                                                U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                 700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                    S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                            (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005    Page 4 of 24



 1         On November 17, 1999, Ressam and Abdel Dahoumane, an Algerian friend of
 2   Ressam’s from M ontreal, flew from M ontreal to Vancouver. They rented a Chrysler
 3   300M automobile in Vancouver and, on November 19, rented a small cottage at the
 4   2400 Court Motel in Vancouver. Ressam registered as Benni Nor is and paid $994 for
 5   two weeks rent. Ressam and Dahoumane used the cottage to prepare the explosives
 6   needed for the bomb.
 7         Meanwhile, Abdel Meskini was in Seattle under a false name waiting to meet
 8   with Ressam. Meskini had been introduced to Ressam (over the telephone) by Mokhtar
 9   Haouari and had traveled to Seattle on D ecember 11th. Meskini understood he was to
10   help Ressam by renting a car, providing him money and a cell phone, and helping him
11   communicate in English.
12         On December 14, 1999, Ressam and Dahoumane checked out of the hotel and
13   traveled from Vancouver to Victoria. Ressam had hidden all of the components of the
14   bomb in the trunk of the rental car: explosives, timing devices, urea, and aluminum
15   nitrate. Ressam purchased a bus ticket for Dahoumane back to Vancouver, and
16   Ressam drove his car onto American ferry M V Coho at Tswassen, British Columbia.
17   At the United States Immigration and N aturalization Service pre-clearance station in
18   Tswassen, Ressam stated his name was Benni Noris and showed INS Inspector Gary
19   Roberts his fraudulent Canadian Benni Nor is passport. Ressam was cleared to board.
20         At approximately 6 p.m. , the MV Coho arrived in Port Angeles. The last car
21   debarking the ferry was Ressam’s Chr ysler 300M. INS Inspector Diana Dean began
22   talking with Ressam and noticed he appear ed nervous. He presented his C ostco card to
23   inspectors when they asked him for identification. Even though this was the last car of
24   the day on the last ferry of the day (when they finished with Ressam they could all go
25   home), the INS inspectors sent Ressam over for a secondary inspection. Inspector
26   Danny Clem looked inside the spare-tire compartment and found a number of items,
27   none of which was a sparetire.
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 4                                             U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                              700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                 S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                         (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC         Document 367     Filed 04/20/2005     Page 5 of 24



 1          The substances in the wheel well were later identified as follows: hexamethylene
 2   triperoxide diamine (HM TD ), a primary explosive; cyclotrimethylene trinitramine
 3   (RDX), a primary explosive; and ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN), a secondary
 4   explosive similar to nitroglycerine. Four black plastic boxes were found to contain
 5   electronic timing devices designed to detonate primary explosives using 9 volt batteries.
 6   There was also a large quantity of urea, a fertilizer that can be converted to fuel for a
 7   destructive device, and aluminum sulfate.
 8          Dur ing the search of his car, Ressam was a short distance away with Inspector
 9   Mark Johnson, who was holding Ressam by his coat. As Ressam saw what was going
10   on, he slipped out of his coat and fled on foot. Inspectors Johnson and Chapman
11   immediately gave chase but Ressam, with a slight head start, managed to temporarily
12   escape. Inspector C hapman found Ressam hiding under a pick-up truck. Although the
13   inspector had drawn his gun and ordered Ressam to come out, Ressam attempted to flee
14   a second time. This time Ressam tried to seize control of a car in an intersection,
15   causing the driver to run a r ed light to escape.
16          Ultimately, the inspectors seized Ressam and brought him back to the secondary
17   inspection area where C ustoms Officials had begun processing the contents of the
18   trunk. Not realizing what they were dealing with, the inspectors shook some of the
19   items as they were removing them. Inspectors noticed that Ressam would duck down
20   behind the automobile door where he was seated as the items were being removed.
21          Ressam' s fear was warranted. F BI Supervisory Special Agent Gregory Carl
22   testified at Ressam’s trial as to the explosive force of the 2.6 pounds of EGD N Ressam
23   was transporting in olive jars. Carl explained that EGD N is equivalent to
24   approximately two times the power of TNT . Carl then prepared a test using the
25   equivalent of the materials Ressam was carrying -- at both one quarter (because Ressam
26   had four timing devices), and the full explosive strength. The video depicting these
27   explosions, shown at trial, showed the utter devastation Ressam’s explosives would
28   have caused – the entire quantity completely destroyed a car, and the blast zone

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 5                                               U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
          Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005     Page 6 of 24



 1   reached hundreds of feet. C learly, Ressam’s bombs, placed at a crowded airport
 2   terminal during the busiest travel time of year, would have killed and maimed hundreds
 3   of innocent people.
 4                              III.   SENTENCING FACTORS
 5             In United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court recently
 6   clarified the process sentencing courts should undertake in determining a fair and just
 7   sentence. A court should, first, consider the sentencing guidelines and determine the
 8   applicable advisory guideline range. Next, the court should consider the factors set
 9   forth in 18 U. S.C. § 3553. As Judge Breyer noted in Booker at 764-765:
10         The Act nonetheless requires judges to consider the Guidelines
           ' sentencing range established for . . . the applicable category of offense
11         committed by the applicable category of defendant,' § 3553(a)(4), the
           pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements, the need to avoid
12         unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to
           victims, §§ 3553(a)(1), 3, (5)-(7) (main ed. and Supp. 224). And the Act
13         nonetheless requires judges to impose sentences that reflect the
           seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just
14         punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and
           effectively provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
15         training and medical care.
16   A.     SENTENCING GUIDELINE CALCULATIONS
17          The U nited States Probation Office Revised Presentence Report (dated March
18   25, 2003) accurately sets forth the sentencing guideline calculations. 1 The guideline
19   calculations captur e the seriousness of Ressam' s crimes and conduct.
20
            1.      Count 1:     Committing an Act of Terrorism Transcending a National
21                               Boundary.
22             Ressam was convicted in Count 1 of C ommitting an Act of Terr orism
23   Transcending a National Boundary, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 2332b(a)(1)(B). Since
24   § 2332b is not listed in the statutory index, U. S.S.G. § 1B1. 2 directs that the most
25   analogous guideline section should be used. Section 2K1.4, property damaged by use
26   of explosives, appears to be most analogous section. Under § 2K1. 4, "if the offense
27
           1
             The N ovember 2000 edition of the United States Sentencing Commission
28   Guidelines Manual has been used to calculate the applicable sentencing range.
     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 6                                               U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005    Page 7 of 24



 1   (A) created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to any person other than
 2   a participant in the offense, and that risk was created knowingly," the base offense level
 3   is 24. Under U. S.S.G. § 3A1. 4(a), " if the offense is a felony that involved, or was
 4   intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism, " the offense level should be
 5   increased by 12, thus providing an adjusted offense level of 36. In addition, under
 6   § 3A1. 4(b), a defendant' s criminal history category "shall be VI for offenses intended
 7   to promote a federal crime of terrorism. " Thus, the applicable sentencing guideline
 8   range for C ount 1 is a sentence of no less than 324 months and no more than 405
 9   months. Since § 2332b has a statutory maximum of 25 years (300 months), the
10   sentencing guideline range for Count 1 is 300 months.
11          It should be noted that § 2332b(c)(2), Consecutive Sentence, r equires that the
12   term of imprisonment imposed under this section "shall" r un consecutively with any
13   other term of imprisonment. The statute, therefore, mandates that the sentence
14   imposed by the C ourt on Count 1 (which the Sentencing Guidelines set at 300 months)
15   be imposed to run consecutively to any sentence imposed on Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
16   and 8. (Count 9, carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony in violation
17   of 18 U. S.C. § 844(h)(2), requires the Court to impose a mandatory ten-year term of
18   imprisonment to run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed. )
19
            2.     Counts 2, 6, 7 and 8:      Placing an Explosive in Proximity to a
20                                            Terminal; Smuggling; T ransportation of
                                              Explosives; and Possession of an Unr egistered
21                                            Destructive Device.
22         Ressam was convicted in Count 2 of Placing an Explosive in Proximity to a
23   Terminal, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 33; in Count 6 of Smuggling, in violation of
24   18 U.S.C. § 545; in Count 7 of Transportation of Explosives, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
25   § 842(a)(3)(A); and in Count 8 of Possession of a Destructive Device, in violation of
26   26 U.S. C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) and 5871. Pursuant to grouping provisions U. S.S.G.
27   § 3D1.2(b), these counts should be grouped (Group 1) because they involve the same
28   victim and two or more acts connected by a common scheme or plan. The Count 6

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 7                                              U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                               700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                  S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                          (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 8 of 24



 1   smuggling conviction under § 2T3. 1, which in turn cross-references § 2K2.1
 2   (transportation of a destructive device), contains the highest base offense level - 20.
 3   There are three specific offense characteristics that are also applicable to Count 6: a
 4   one-point upward adjustment pursuant to § 2K2. 1(b)(1)(A) for committing an offense
 5   involving three to four destructive devices; a two-point upward adjustment pursuant to
 6   § 2K2.1(b)(3) for committing an offense involving a destructive device; and a four-
 7   point upward adjustment pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(5) for possessing a destructive device
 8   with knowledge that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony
 9   offense. There is also one victim-related adjustment applicable to Count 6: a twelve
10   point upward adjustment pursuant to § 3A1. 4(a) for committing a felony that involved,
11   or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism. These enhancements yield an
12   adjusted offense level of 39.
13
            3.     Counts 3, 4 and 5: Possessing False Identification Documents; Using a
14                                    Fictitious Name for Admission into the United States;
                                      and M aking a False Statem ent.
15
            Ressam was convicted in Count 3 of Possessing False Identification Documents,
16
     in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 1028; in Count 4 of Using a Fictitious Name for Admission
17
     into the United States, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 1546; and in Count 5 of Making a
18
     False Statement, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1001. Pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3D1. 2(b),
19
     these counts should be grouped (Group 2) because they involve the same victim and
20
     two or more acts connected by a common scheme or plan. The Count 3 conviction for
21
     possessing false identification documents is governed by § 2L2. 2, which instructs a
22
     Court to cross-reference a mor e relevant sentencing guideline section if the defendant
23
     used a passport "in the commission of a felony offense, other than an offense involving
24
     violation of the immigration laws." The most analogous substantive offense is Count 1,
25
     which leads to the previously-discussed guideline calculations under § 2K1. 4: base
26
     offense level 24, plus a twelve point adjustment pursuant to § 3A1. 4(a) for committing
27

28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 8                                               U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC          Document 367    Filed 04/20/2005     Page 9 of 24



 1   a felony that involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism. Thus,
 2   the adjusted offense level is 36.
 3
            4.     Count 9:      Carrying an Explosive D evice dur ing the Commission of a
 4                               Felony.
 5          Ressam was convicted in Count 9 of Carrying an Explosive Device during the
 6   Commission of a Felony, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 844(h)(2). This statute requires
 7   the Court to impose a ten-year mandatory sentence of imprisonment to run
 8   consecutively to all other char ges.
 9          5.     Multiple Count Adjustment
10          U. S. S. G. § 3D 1. 4 provides that Groups 1 and 2 ar e each assigned one unit
11   (two total units), resulting in a two-level increase to the group with the highest offense
12   level. This yields an adjusted offense level of 41 for Counts 2-8. Under § 3A1. 4(b), a
13   defendant' s criminal history category "shall be VI for offenses intended to promote a
14   federal crime of terrorism. " Thus, the applicable sentencing guideline range for these
15   counts is a sentence of 360 months to life.
16          6.     Final Sentencing Guideline Calculations
17          Based on a total offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of VI, the
18   guideline range of imprisonment on Counts 2-8 is 360 months to life. The term of
19   imprisonment imposed on Count 1 is to run consecutively to the term of imprisonment
20   imposed on Counts 2-8. The guideline range on Count 1, based on a total offense level
21   of 36 and a criminal history category of VI, is 324 months to 405 months. H owever,
22   since the maximum sentence the Court may impose on Count 1 is 25 years, the
23   guideline calculations is 300 months. T herefore the combined guideline range for
24   Counts 1-8 is 660 months to life. Finally, the sentence on Count 9 requires a 10-year
25   mandatory consecutive sentence.
26          Under the Sentencing Guidelines, THE LOW END OF RESSAM'S
27   SENTENCING RANGE IS 780 MONTHS (65 YEARS).
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 9                                               U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
          Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC      Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005    Page 10 of 24



 1   B.     18 U. S.C. § 3553(a) SENTENCING FACTORS
 2          In addition to considering the applicable sentencing guideline range, C ourts are
 3   instructed to consider a number other additional factors, under § 3553.
 4
            1.     The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
 5                 characteristics of the defendant.
 6
            The offenses for which Ressam was convicted are among the most ser ious in
 7
     criminal law. (The fact that the low end of the applicable sentencing guideline ranges
 8
     is 780 months illustrates the seriousness of the offenses.) As the events of 9/11 proved
 9
     beyond all doubt, terrorists are not just attempting to murder innocent civilians and
10
     destroy landmark structures. Their goal is much broader - they are seeking to tear the
11
     fabric that binds the people of our nation together, and the nations of the world
12
     together.
13
            Ressam intended by his actions to fulfill the fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden
14
     the year before. In 1998, bin Laden and Egyptian physician Ayman al Zawahiri
15
     arranged for the publication of a fatwa, an interpretation of Islamic law, “ Claiming that
16
     Amer ica had declared war against God and his messenger, and they called for the
17
     murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the ‘individual duty for ever y M uslim
18
     who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. ’” The 9/ 11 Commission
19
     Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
20
     States, at 47 (2004).
21
            In accordance with this fatwa, Ressam' s plan was not simply to plant a bomb.
22
     He chose to plant his bomb at an international airport, and thereby lay in ruins one of
23
     our nation' s most critical transportation systems. And Ressam did not randomly choose
24
     any airport: he chose Los Angeles International Airport, the fifth busiest airport in the
25
     world and in one of the country' s largest urban areas. He did not randomly choose any
26
     date: he chose the millennium so that the chaos and fear flowing from his act would be
27
     magnified ten-fold.
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 10                                             U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                               700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                  S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                          (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 11 of 24



 1          Ressam' s history and characteristics provide little support for leniency. Ressam
 2   supported himself primar ily through criminal activity. He assumed numerous false
 3   identities (Nassar Ressam, Anjer Tahar Medjadi, and Benni Noris) to allow him to
 4   illegally enter and remain in various countries. While in Canada, Ressam submitted
 5   false statements in a failed effort to obtain asylum. He ignored judicial deportation
 6   orders, and was arrested on theft related offenses in 1996 and 1997. H e was convicted
 7   in France (in absentia) in connection with terrorist related activities committed by a
 8   group of extremists associated with Fateh Kamel. Between March 1998 and February
 9   1999, Ressam was in Afghanistan training to be a terrorist. After he returned and until he
10   was arrested in December 1999, Ressam undertook a series of steps to convert his
11   terrorist training to action. In sum, during Ressam’s entire adult life, he has been
12   immersed in committing all manner of crimes.
13
            2(A). The need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
14                to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
                  crime.
15
            The Sentencing Guidelines recomm ended range of 65 years reflects the
16
     extraordinary gr avity of Ressam' s offenses. But for the professional (and fortuitous)
17
     work of the Port Angeles Customs Inspectors, the shock to our nation that occurred on
18
     9/11 would have occurred 18 months earlier.
19
            Ressam, as with all terrorists, was attempting to do more than murder innocent
20
     people: he was participating in a war intended to claim as many innocent lives as
21
     possible. The 9/ 11 attacks in the United States, the M adrid train bombings in Spain, the
22
     Bali explosion in Australia, and the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands are
23
     recent examples of criminal activity that extend far beyond the specific crime. The
24
     killing of van Gogh on Novem ber 2, 2004, by M oham med Bouyeri (allegedly) is
25
     especially illustr ative. On the one hand, it was simply a murder, a crime that sadly
26
     occurs daily throughout the world. But van Gogh' s homicide was more than murder, it
27
     was a terrorist act. By targeting van Gogh because he had made a controver sial film
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 11                                                U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                  700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                     S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                             (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 12 of 24



 1   about Islamic culture, by killing him publicly on the streets of Amsterdam, by almost
 2   beheading him, by pinning a five page letter to his body with a second knife, the
 3   perpetrators of this murder committed a terrorist act. In the days following van Gogh' s
 4   death, more than 60 mosques and churches were repor tedly the victims of arson
 5   attacks. Several leading European newspapers speculated that the murder would end
 6   the dream of multiculturalism for Europe.
 7          Ressam was looking for a similar impact. He intentionally chose a target within
 8   the United States at one of the world' s largest urban centers. He chose a critical
 9   industry and a vulnerable time. Ressam' s solemn and intended goal was to wreak
10   destruction - on lives, on structures, and on the nation. His sentence should be an
11   unfaltering response to that heinous goal.
12          The American people and the world at large must have confidence that our
13   justice system works -- that when ter rorists are arrested and indicted, they will be fairly
14   tried. When they are convicted, they will be held fully accountable for their crimes. In
15   this case, that punishment begins with a 65-year guideline range, and then takes into
16   account the inconstant cooperation Ressam provided the United States and other
17   countries.
18
            2(B). The need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to
19                criminal conduct.
20          The unfortunate reality of today' s world is that the threat of future terrorists
21   attacks is a continuing and genuine thr eat. The number one priority of the Pr esident,
22   the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of
23   Homeland Security has been, and continues to be, to protect America against the
24   confounding menace of terrorism. The federal government itself has undergone a
25   wartime reorganization to addr ess this threat.
26          The sentence this Court imposes on Ressam must impart a deterrent to others
27   contemplating actions against the United States. It must broadcast a clear message to
28   extremists that when caught and convicted, they will suffer serious consequences. At

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 12                                                U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                  700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                     S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                             (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367         Filed 04/20/2005    Page 13 of 24



 1   least one commentator has discussed the importance of deterrence particularly as it
 2   relates to acts of terrorism. In Why T errorism Works, attorney Alan D ershowitz
 3   chronicled the r ising tide of terrorism in the latter Twentieth C entur y, particularly
 4   noting the toothless response of other nations. He concluded:
 5                 [I]t is highly likely that an immediate and firm negative, r ather than
            positive, response to terrorism would have reduced its frequency and
 6          severity. . . This requires unambiguous action that sends only one clear
            message – namely, that terrorism never pays, that it always sets back the
 7          cause, and that, if the cause is to succeed, then its leader s must resort to
            other techniques for bringing about change.
 8                 . . .
 9                  The only way [terror ism] can be thwarted is by eliminating the
            incentives for terrorism and enforcing disincentives, severely punishing
10          and incapacitating the terrorists themselves, and deligitimizing their
            leaders. If the international community had taken these measures –
11          instead of rewarding terrorist acts, releasing the terrorists, and honoring
            their leaders – it would almost cer tainly have made a considerable
12          difference in how ter rorism was viewed by those contemplating its
            continued use as a tactic for change.
13
     Alan Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works, (Yale University Press, 2002) at 86, 88
14   (emphasis in original).
15          In sum, it is quite possible that the deterrent impact of this Court’s sentence will be
16   far greater than in any other case this Court has ever considered, in terms of the message
17   this Court sends to others considering similar acts.
18
            2(C). The need for the sentence imposed to protect the public from further crimes
19                of the defendant.
20          Ressam' s arrest on December 14, 1999, was not the result of a sudden lapse of
21   judgment. It was the culmination of years of planning and work, all aimed at causing
22   as much harm to the United States as he could possibly inflict. Ressam' s hatred toward
23   the United States and its people was not something that he could simply shut off.
24          Following his conviction in April 2001, Ressam claimed that after he observed
25   the fairness with which the Court treated him throughout the trial, he had a change of
26   heart. He declared that he was "firmly against" terrorist operations in America and
27   around the world. Ressam' s sudden change of heart raises suspicion about the
28   motivations for his cooperation. It suggests that Ressam chose to go to trial because he

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 13                                                 U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                   700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                      S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                              (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 14 of 24



 1   had no intention of accepting responsibility for his actions and felt no remorse for them.
 2   It suggests that Ressam embraced Am erica only after he was convicted and faced the
 3   near certainty that his sentence of imprisonment would ensure he would die in prison.
 4   Regardless of motivation, Ressam chose to cooperate and then, after he extracted the
 5   substantial assistance motion from the United States, he chose to end his cooperation.
 6          If Ressam had undergone a genuine change of heart, as opposed to merely trying
 7   to minimize his period of incarceration, he would continue to cooperate. H is decision
 8   to end cooperation raises the specter that he continues to pose a real and serious threat
 9   to the United States. Thus, this Court must decide at what age would Ressam no
10   longer pose a threat to this county.
11
            6.     The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with
12                 similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.
13          It is difficult to find other analogous defendants that provide the Court a clear
14   comparison. There are, however, a few cases for the Court to consider:
15
     United States v. Mokhtar Haouari: CR00-00015, SD NY:
16
            Mokhtar Haouari and Abdel Meskini, were indicted on January 6, 2000, on 8
17          counts in the United States Court for Southern District of New York. The
            defendants were indicted based on their connection to Ressam and fugitive
18          Abdelmajid Dahoumane. A credit car in Ressam's possession linked him to
            Defendant Haouari.
19
            Haouari and M eskini were charged with: 2 counts for violations of 18
20          U.S.C.§ 371 & 18 USC § 842, conspiracy to provide false identification for the
            purposes of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials; 2 counts
21          for violations of 18 USC § 1028, fraud related to identification documents; 2
            counts for violations of 18 USC § 1029, fraud using an access device; 1 count for
22          violating 18 USC § 1344, bank fraud; and, 1 count for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922,
            importing or manufacturing firearms or ammunition without a license.
23
            Meskini pleaded guilty prior to trial to all counts and was sentenced to a total of
24          72 months and ordered to pay $59, 545 in restitution. Tr ied on seven counts,
            Haouari was convicted on counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. He was acquitted of count 2,
25          and the government dismissed count 7. On January 17, 2002, Haouari was
            sentenced to a total of 288 months in prison.
26

27

28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 14                                              U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC      Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005     Page 15 of 24



 1   United States v. Ramzi Yousef, et al:    CR93-180-KTD SD NY (World Trade Center
                                              Bombings)
 2
            On February 26, 1993, at approximately 12:18 p.m., an improvised explosive
 3          device detonated on the second level of the World Trade Center parking basement.
            The resulting blast produced a crater, approximately 150 feet in diameter and five
 4          floors deep, in the parking basement. The main explosive charge consisted of
            approximately 1,200 to 1,500 pounds of a homemade fertilizer-based explosive,
 5          urea nitrate. The investigation following the explosions linked several distinct
            groups to the bombing and resulted in an indictment that was filed on March 17,
 6          1993. The investigation continued for almost two years after the first
            indictment. The final 20-count indictment, filed on December 13, 1995, named
 7          10 defendants.
 8          Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was convicted of 18 counts, including: destruction by
            explosion by Improvised Device causing death; assault upon a federal officer with
 9          a deadly weapon; using a destructive device in relation to an assault of a federal
            officer; attempt to destroy aircraft; attempt to bomb U. S. commercial airliner;
10          conspiracy to kill U. S. nationals with the intent of retaliate against the
            government; and, conspiracy to bomb U. S. nationals out side the U. S. and
11          bombing a civil aircraft. Yousef was sentenced to 8 life sentences plus 240
            year s, fined $4. 5 million dollars, and ordered to pay $250 million dollars in
12          restitution.
13          Mahmud Abdouhalima was convicted on 9 counts, sentenced to 240 years
            imprisonment, fined $250, 000, and ordered to pay $250 million dollars in
14          restitution.
15          Mohammad Salameh was convicted of 10 counts, sentenced to nearly 117 years
            imprisonment, fined $250, 000, and ordered to pay $250 million dollars in
16          restitution.
17          Nidal Ayyad was convicted of 9 counts, sentenced to 117 years, fined $250,000,
            and ordered to pay $250 million dollars in restitution.
18          Bilal Alkaisi turned states evidence and pleaded guilty to one count, making false
            statements. He was sentenced to 20 months and 2 years supervised release.
19
            Ahmad Mohamm ad Ajaj was convicted of 9 counts, sentenced to 115 years,
20
            fined $250,000, and ordered to pay $250 million dollars in restitution.
            Abdul Hakim Murad was convicted on 7 counts, sentenced to life plus 60 years
21
            of imprisonment, and fined $250,000.
22
            Eyad Ismoil was convicted of 10 counts, sentenced to 240 year s imprisonment,
23          fined $250,000, and ordered to pay $10 million dollars in restitution.

24
     United States v. Mohamed al-'Owhali, et al: CR98-1023 SD NY (Embassy
25                                               Bombings)

26          On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at the United States Embassys in Kenya
            and Tanzania killing 224 people, including 12 Amer icans. After a series of
27          indictments were returned r elating to the bombings, one defendant pleaded guilty
            and four defendants went to trial.
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 15                                             U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                               700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                  S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                          (206) 553-7970
          Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005      Page 16 of 24



 1          Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, a Saudi, was the passenger in the actual
            bomb truck. He got out of the truck and threw a stun grenade at the guards
 2          before fleeing the scene. Owhali survived the bomb blast and was arrested at the
            hospital. In May 2001, Owhali was convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy and
 3          213 counts of murder, including 12 Americans, in the bombing of the U.S.
            Embassy in Kenya. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of
 4          parole.
 5          Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, a Tanzanian, was arrested in South Africa and
            extradited to the U. S. in October 1999. His house was used as a bomb factory
 6          and a base of operations for the bombing conspiracy. In May 2001, Mohamed
            was convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy to kill Amer icans and 11 counts of
 7          murder in the bombing of the U . S. Embassy in Tanzania. He was sentenced to
            life in prison without the possibility of parole.
 8
            Moham med Saddiq Odeh, a Jordanian, was arrested trying to enter Pakistan
 9          with a fake Yemeni passport on the day of the East African Embassy bom bings.
            He was interrogated by Pakistani officials, and he eventually admitted being part
10          of the Embassy bombing conspiracy. In May 2001, Odeh was convicted by a
            feder al jury of conspiracy in the Kenya bombing. He was sentenced to life in
11          prison without the possibility of parole.
12          Wadih El Hage, an Amer ican citizen, was a known bin Laden associate. In
            May 2001, El Hage was found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy and
13          perjury. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
14          Ali Mohamed, a 48 year old Egyptian native and former U. S. Ar my sergeant,
            plead guilty to charges resulting from the embassy bombings. On Friday,
15          October 20, 2000, M ohamed told Judge Leonard Sand of the U. S. D istrict Court
            in Manhattan that at the request of bin Laden, he had conducted surveillance of
16          U. S., British, and Fr ench targets in Nairobi, including the U. S. Embassy. He
            then delivered pictures, diagrams, and a report to bin Laden in Khartoum,
17          Sudan. He said that bin Laden looked at a photograph of the U. S. Embassy and
            pointed to the place where a bomb truck could be driven through. The tar gets
18          were chosen, Mohamed said, to retaliate against the U. S. intervention in the
            civil war in Somalia. Mohamed pleaded guilty to five federal counts of
19          conspiracy, which included plotting to kill U. S. citizens, destroy U . S. facilities,
            and murder U . S. soldiers in Somalia and Saudi Arabia. Mohamed has not yet
20          been sentenced.
21   C.     SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.
22          After considering the defendant’s guideline range and the statutory sentencing
23   factors, this Court must also consider what affect the defendant’s substantial assistance
24   should have on his sentence.
25          1.     The Government’s Substantial Assistance Motion.
26          On February 26, 2003, the United States filed a motion pursuant to U. S.S.G.
27   § 5K1. 1 to sentence Ressam "below the otherwise applicable guideline range. " The
28   motion was based on Ressam' s "substantial assistance in the case of United States v.

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 16                                                U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                  700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                     S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                             (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005     Page 17 of 24



 1   Maohtar Haouari, a matter prosecuted in the Southern D istrict of New York in the
 2   summer of 2001."
 3          The Southern District of New York has filed a motion describing Ressam' s
 4   cooperation in the Haouari case. The motion details Ressam' s initial cooperation in the
 5   investigation and indictment of Abu Doha (pending extradition from the United
 6   Kingdom) and Samir Ait Mohamed (pending extradition from Canada). In assessing
 7   how much of a benefit Ressam should receive for this cooperation, the Cour t must also
 8   take into account more recent events.
 9          Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines is framed to recognize a defendant' s "substantial
10   assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an
11   offense. " Ressam provided substantial assistance in the case of Haouari by testifying at
12   the trial. This clearly falls within the scope of § 5K1.1. Ressam also provided
13   "cooperation" in the form of intelligence debriefings to the United States and other
14   countries. Whether that type of activity falls under § 5K1.1 is an open question that the
15   Court need not address since Ressam' s intelligence debriefings are clearly a factor that
16   the Court should consider in arriving at Ressam' s final sentence of imprisonment under
17   18 U. S.C. § 3553 and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
18          2.     The Cooperation Agreement
19          On June 23, 2001, Ressam and his attorneys signed a cooperation agreement
20   with the U nited States. (See Attachment 1. ) This agreement requir ed Ressam to
21   cooperate with law enforcement and intelligence agencies from the United States and
22   from foreign countries by providing complete and truthful information and by testifying
23   truthfully before the grand jury or at any trial, including the trial in the Southern
24   District of New Yor k against Mokhtar Haouari. Prior to signing the cooperation
25   agreement, Ressam had previously provided statements to federal law enforcement
26   personnel on May 10, 16, 17, 22, and 24 of 2001. In these statements, Ressam
27   detailed, among other topics, his planned bombing of LAX, the training camps in
28   Afghanistan, and the identity and positions of individuals involved in other terror ist

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 17                                               U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                 700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                    S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                            (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005     Page 18 of 24



 1   cells outside the United States. It should be noted that of the 55 pages in repor ts
 2   produced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with these five
 3   debriefings, only a small portion was devoted to Mokhtar H aouari. In exchange for
 4   Ressam providing intelligence information and testimony at trial, the United States
 5   agreed to file a § 5K1. 1 motion if his cooperation proved to be of "substantial
 6   assistance."
 7            The June 23, 2001, cooperation agreement had one additional cr itical
 8   element:
 9             "Further, the parties stipulate and agree that if the government files
              a downward departure motion, pursuant to U. S. S. G. 5K1. 1, in view
10            of the defendant's crime and notwithstanding any assistance provided
              by Ressam, the government and the defense will jointly recommend
11            that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less
              than twenty-seven (27) years. That is, while either party may
12            recommend a sentence not less than twenty-seven (27) years, the
              government may recommend a sentence in excess of twenty-seven (27)
13            years up to the high end of the applicable guideline range. "
14   The Court should honor this cooperation agreement entered into by both parties. This
15   is especially true given the present situation where Ressam has not even lived up to the
16   requir ements of the agreement. His decision to end his cooperation not only
17   jeopardizes two critical pending criminal extradition matters (Abu Doha and Samir Ait
18   Mohamed), it is a clear violation of his agreement.
19            In correspondence to Ressam' s attorney in March 2002 related to continuing the
20   sentencing date, the government stated:
21            "Because Mr. Ressam' s cooperation is incomplete, [we] cannot predict
              what sentence the government will ultimately recomm end. However, the
22            greater amount of cooperation Mr. Ressam has rendered to the
              government at the time of sentencing, the more equity he will hold in the
23            calculation of the government' s sentencing recommendation. As noted
              above, at this time, the government is not prepared to reconsider the 27
24            year floor. Further, based on the cooperation to date, we would not
              recommend a sentence in the 27 year range. "
25
     Thus, as of M arch 2002, and well before Ressam breached the agreement by ceasing all
26
     cooperation, the government had determined that its recomm endation would be over 27
27
     years.
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 18                                              U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 19 of 24



 1          3.     Ressam’s Refusal to Cooperate and Rejection of the Cooperation
                   Agreement.
 2
            Since entering into the cooper ation agreement, Ressam has reneged on his
 3
     promise to cooperate and, in doing so, has created new and serious problems for
 4
     prosecutions in this country. The U nited States cur rently finds itself in the extremely
 5
     difficult situation of trying to proceed with these critical prosecutions after the most
 6
     significant evidence (Ressam' s testimony) has evaporated. The situation is especially
 7
     troubling because the United Kingdom and Canada arrested Doha and M ohammed
 8
     respectively and have detained the men for sever al years based on the U nited States'
 9
     assurances that we had sufficient evidence to convict the men of the pending charges
10
     (Doha was arrested in Februar y 2001, as he attempted to fly from L ondon' s Heathrow
11
     Airport to Saudi Arabia under a false passport. Mohammed was arrested by Canada on
12
     July 2001, as he attempted to cross the bor der from C anada into the United States. )
13
     To dismiss the charges would be a significant blow to the United States' efforts to fight
14
     the global war on terrorism.
15
            4.     The Report of Dr. Stuart Grassian.
16
            Ressam has attempted to justify his current refusal to cooperate by submitting to
17
     the Court a report by Dr. Stuart Grassian, a psychiatrist who espouses expertise on the
18
     effects of solitary confinement. Dr . Grassian’s report is an interesting assemblage of
19
     observations and commentary, the entirety of which suggests that Dr. Grassian
20
     perceives his role to be far more that of an advocate than that of a dispassionate
21
     clinician.
22
            Dr . Grassian’s research and methodology on the effects of solitary confinement
23
     have recently come under attack. F or example, in April, 2005, Grassian testified in the
24
     case of Michael Ross, a serial killer and Ivy League graduate who confessed to killing
25
     eight teenage girls and young women. Ross was convicted of six counts of capital
26
     murder and for several years has asked that his appeals be stopped and that he be put to
27
     death. Dr. Grassian, who adm itted to a r epor ter his opinion that the death penalty
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 19                                               U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                 700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                    S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                            (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC      Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005    Page 20 of 24



 1   “ doesn’t serve us well, ” (Matt Apuzzo, “ Psychiatrist Says Ross W ants to Go Out in
 2   Blaze of Glory, ” Newsday.com, April 12, 2005), has testified against Ross’ own
 3   wishes, asserting that Ross’s confinement conditions led to Ross’s mental
 4   incompetence. Another expert in the Ross case testified, “ I have not found any research
 5   that supports [Dr. Grassian’s] theory, ” and she criticized Grassian’s methodology.
 6   (Associated Pr ess, “ Ross Psychiatrist Says He’s Competent, ” Apr il 12, 2005). 2 Ross’s
 7   own attor ney “ was especially harsh with Dr. Stuart Grassian. [The attorney] said
 8   Grassian manipulated facts to make Ross fit his theory that solitary confinement can
 9   create mental incompetence. ” (Matt Apuzzo, “ Judge Pr omises Ruling Soon on Ross
10   Competency,” Newsday.com, Aporil 15, 2005). The Ross case highlights the danger
11   of this Court relying solely on Dr. Grassian’s report, without subjecting his conclusions
12   and methodology to careful scrutiny.
13          Even assuming that Dr. Grassian’s opinions are solely the result of clinical
14   objectivity and not serving a philosophical agenda, this Court must acknowledge that
15   Ressam’s time in solitary confinement was limited in duration and, for a significant
16   portion of time, at his request. After his arrest in December 1999, Ressam spent all of
17   2000 meeting extensively and frequently with his defense team prepar ing for trial.
18   Ressam was transferred to Los Angeles for trial in early 2001, and was in trial during
19   March and April. W ithin weeks of his conviction, Ressam began a series of
20   debriefings and interviews with law enforcement personnel that lasted through the end
21   of 2001 and beginning of 2002. (For a more complete picture of the extensive contact
22   Ressam had following his conviction, see Docket 357, Defendant’s Preliminary
23   Submission on the Duration and Nature of His Cooperation filed April 12, 2005. ) On
24   March 1, 2002, AU SA Jerry Diskin sent a letter to Ressam’s defense team offering to
25

26
            2
             Dr . Grassian’s opinions have been subject to similar objections in the past, one
27   expert claiming, “ Dr. Grassian’s research ‘does not stand up to the most elementary
     form of scientific scrutiny.” McClary v. Kelly, 4 F. Supp. 2d 195, 207 (W . D. N. Y.
28   1998).

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 20                                             U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                               700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                  S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                          (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005     Page 21 of 24



 1   assist in getting Ressam removed from solitary and placed him in the Bureau of Prisons
 2   Witness Security Progr am. That offer was rejected. It is inconceivable that the
 3   defense would have rejected the government’s offer if Ressam suffered the alleged
 4   extraordinar y har dships of solitary confinement. Thus, factually, Dr. Gr assian simply
 5   is not accurately portraying Ressam’s confinement. Moreover, the letter submitted to
 6   this Court by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
 7   points out that since at least April, 2004, Ressam has been in the Witness Security
 8   Program, in a facility where he is not housed in solitary confinement. Thus, for at
 9   least a year, his confinem ent conditions should have led to some change in his
10   willingness to cooperate. That Ressam has not altered his mind set suggests that he
11   believes he has achieved his objective--receiving a lesser sentence with no further
12   cooperation required.
13          5.     Conclusion.
14          In sum, even taking into account that Ressam' s purported cooperation, resulted
15   in his taking one step forward by testifying in the Haouari trial, but then two steps
16   backward by reneging on his promise to cooper ate against D oha and M oham med. This
17   Court must consider the serious repercussions of Ressam' s reneging on his agreement
18   to cooperate - a promise which, under its terms, was to be ongoing so long as the
19   government sought his cooperation.
20          In light of this incomplete cooperation, the government’s recommendation,
21   which takes thirty years off of the low end of Ressam’s guideline range, is
22   extraordinar ily generous. The government’s recommendation has taken into
23   consideration the multiple occasions that Ressam has met with and provided
24   information to the United States and international law enforcement agencies, and his
25   testimony in the Haouari trial in New York The government’s recommendation has
26   also taken into account Ressam’s decision to end all future cooperation with the
27   government.
28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 21                                              U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC       Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005    Page 22 of 24



 1

 2            IV.     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION
 3          In considering the applicable sentencing guideline range, the factors under
 4   § 3553(a), Ressam' s cooperation in the trial of Haouari, his cooperation in providing
 5   intelligence to the United States and other countries, his decision to cease his
 6   cooperation, his age, and his potential danger when released, the United States
 7   recommends that the C ourt impose a thirty-five (35) year sentence of imprisonment.
 8          If Ressam had not been captured at the United States border, hundreds of
 9   innocent men, women, and children would have died or been severely injured at his
10   hand. The sentence that this Court imposes must be commensurate with the
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 22                                              U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                   S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                           (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC      Document 367      Filed 04/20/2005   Page 23 of 24



 1   malevolence intended by that crime, and must acknowledge the worldwide
 2   condemnation of terrorism, in all its forms.
 3          DATED this 20th day of April, 2005.
 4                                            Respectfully submitted,
 5

 6                                            S/JOHN M cKAY
                                              JOHN McKAY
 7                                            United States Attorney
                                              WA Bar #12935
 8                                            United States Attorney’s Office
                                              700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
 9                                            Seattle, W A 98101
                                              Telephone: 206-553-7970
10                                            Fax No. :     206-553-0755
                                              E-Mail:       John. McKay@usdoj.gov
11

12                                            S/MARK N. BARTLETT
                                              MARK N. BARTLETT
13                                            First Assistant United States Attorney
                                              WA Bar #15672
14                                            United States Attorney’s Office
                                              700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
15                                            Seattle, W A 98101
                                              Telephone: 206-553-7970
16                                            Fax No. :     206-553-0755
                                              E-Mail:       Mark. Bartlett@usdoj.gov
17

18                                            S/MIKE LANG
                                              MIKE LANG
19                                            Assistant United States Attorney
                                              WA Bar #19262
20                                            United States Attorney’s Office
                                              700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
21                                            Seattle, W A 98101
                                              Telephone: 206-553-7970
22                                            Fax No. :     206-553-0755
                                              E-Mail:       Mike.Lang@usdoj. gov
23

24

25

26

27

28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 23                                           U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                             700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                        (206) 553-7970
         Case 2:99-cr-00666-JCC        Document 367       Filed 04/20/2005     Page 24 of 24



 1                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 2          I hereby certify that on April 20, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
 3   Clerk of Court using the CM /ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
 4   the attorney(s) of record for the defendant(s). I hereby certify that I have served the
 5   attorney(s) of record for the defendant(s) that are non CM/ECF participants via telefax.
 6

 7                                                     s/FAY FRENCH
                                                        Fay French
 8                                                      Program Assistant
                                                        United States Attorney’s Office
 9                                                      700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
                                                        Seattle, Washington 98101
10                                                      Phone: (206) 553-2270
                                                        FAX: (206) 553-0755
11                                                      E-mail: Fay.French@usdoj.gov
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
     M EM ORA ND UM /R ESSA M - 24                                                U N I T E D ST A T E S AT T O R N E Y
                                                                                  700 S TEWART S TREET, S UITE 5220
     CR 99-666C                                                                     S EATTLE, W A S HI N GT O N 98101
                                                                                             (206) 553-7970

								
To top